377 
noble sentiments he expressed at times, which make it very easy for one 
to say that Tacitus was very hard upon him ; but the fact is, that that is a 
matter of pure detail. I can only say that I am very glad I did not live 
in the reign of the emperor Tiberius. With regard to Tacitus, I would 
simply remark that many thinkers of eminence have been of opinion 
that the Germania was written to shame Rome. That may not have been 
the case ; but either way, that, again, is a matter of pure detail. Then, with 
regard to the empress Theodora, we are threatened with a discussion, the 
reverse of edifying, as to whether she or Messalina was the worst ; but 
that is beside the point I wished to bring forward. My point was 
that Christian society would not allow a Theodora on the throne, to 
indulge in the vices which were not even rebuked in the case of Messalina, 
which shows that Christianity had become a very powerful moral force in 
the course of a few centuries, even in the depraved atmosphere of Byzan- 
tium. ^ Then I have been accused of making a startling statement, when I said 
that “ whatever was done for conscience’ sake, however ill-informed that con- 
science may be, will, m the end, be productive of good rather than evil.” I 
adhere to my statement. “ The blood'of martyrs ” has ever been “ the seed of 
the Church and even religious persecution, if it has had no other good effect, 
ins never failed— (1) To deepen and purify the faith of the persecuted ; and 
(2) to attract others to it. Even if the persecuted faith should be in some 
respects in error, yet it is the truth, and not the error mingled with it, that 
gives strength to stand the test ; it is the truth, and not the error, which 
attracts men to it. The next point I come to is, as to whether chivalry was 
due to the Moors. I am aware that many of the Moors were persons 
of polished manners and of a character superior even to many of 
the knights of the West who combated them ; but a careful examina- 
tion of the history of chivalry and of its connection with the 
Crusades will, I think, justify my opinion, that the war undertaken under 
the Crusades, though under a mistaken view of what Christ’s service de- 
manded, had the effect of bringing Christianity to bear on the usages of war ; 
and no one can possibly deny, whatever individual instances of atrocity may 
be brought against it, that war, as carried on in the nineteenth century, and 
as carried on centuries ago, are two very different things ; and to what can 
that difference be attributed, if not to our religion? Then again, with re- 
ference to the same speaker’s remark, that chivalry was due to the Moors, I 
would reply that the institution of chivalry, as known in Christian Europe, 
was deeply tinctured by Christianity ; and I would venture to maintain that 
salad in, though courteous, cultivated, and honourable, fell very much below 
the ideal of manly virtue which the chivalry of Christian nations held up before 
its lotaiies. Then I was told that the Franco-German war was due solely 
o t le jealousy and ambition of the sovereigns who engaged in it. Now 
I think that statement I may venture distinctly to controvert. It was not 
simply the ambition of a king, on one side or the other, but what I have 
called the clash of opposing principles, as held by large masses, which led 
